Is there a way to move this forward without the trail part?”

Council member David Clausen

Is there a way to move this forward without the trail part?”

Council member David Clausen

More new homes are coming soon to Cottage Grove.
Meeting Feb. 19 at City Hall, the Cottage Grove City Council approved a rezone and preliminary plat request for Lochridge, a 183-unit mixed single family and townhome development to be located off Jamaica and Military Road. Motion to approve the rezone and preliminary plat was made by council member Dave Thiede, seconded by council member Monique Garza.
Presented on by city planner Samantha Pierret, the new development by Pulte Homes will see 99 single family residential lots and 84 lots on 57.3 net buildable acres (72.14 acres total) west of Jamaica Avenue where it meets Military Road, along the Woodbury border. The new development is zoned R-4 or Transitional Residential, with no Planned Use Development (PUD) overlay included in the plans. A PUD is an administrative planning tool that allows for flexibility with zoning requirements in certain instances, often in pursuit of some other good.
Townhomes for the development will be slab on grade, while single family homes would be a mixture of walk out, split walk out, split look out, and full basement.
The latest of many proposed plats over the years, Lochridge will also have a trail around Lake Robert, located north of the nearby Michael’s Pointe development. The lake trail plans date to 2007 when the city first approved Waters at Michael’s Pointe, a plan document outlining a trail on the west, south, and east.
Multiple outlots are involved with the preliminary plat as well, titled A, B, E, and G. Outlots A and B are owned by a private party while Outlot E is owned by the city. Outlot G is slated for a neighborhood park.
“At the time of platting the Waters at Michael’s Pointe Outlet A was retained by the landowner and planned to be dedicated with future development to the north, which is what we are discussing tonight,” Pierret explained to the council. Past proposals have been limited by factors like bedrock and Lake Robert, restricting the buildable area.
As for the present, Pierret shared that, “the developer has submitted a landscape plan that does meet with our code requirements, including the trees and the shrubs, with a buffer that averages 75 feet along Jamaica Avenue behind the proposed townhomes.” The buffer will be similar to Kingston Fields.
Additional right of way is included in the northeast corner of the plat to allow for a future roundabout where Jamaica Road meets Military Avenue, anticipated around 2028. The buffer was pushed 150 feet from Jamaica to meet county standards, with the Lake Robert wetland and wetland buffer also impacting developable area.
“And an area of bedrock which affects the ability for utility installation and will require some excavation and blasting,” Pierret said of things to come.
As a result of said restrictions, the development is proposed as a mixed single-family home and townhome development. Then there were trails.
“An eight-foot-wide trail will be constructed on the north and south sides of the Ravine Parkway extension and an internal sidewalk will also be constructed in the development,” Pierret said. Access will be via Ravine Parkway to Jamaica Avenue, designed to handle 15,000 vehicles per day. Traffic on Jamaica with the new development will equal just over a third of this at 5.,700.
Pulte will be responsible for installing right and left turn lanes on Ravine Parkway to access Jamaica as well as north and south turn lanes on Jamaica to access Ravine Parkway.
“The developer will also be required to deposit escrow funds for future construction of the trail along Jamaica Avenue going north,” Pierret said. “This section of the trail will not be built until the rebuild of Jamaica happens around 2028.”
Touching on the January Plan Commission meeting and proposed development’s consistency with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, Pierret noted the distinction between the Comprehensive Plan and city zoning.
“The difference is that the Comprehensive Plan does guide the actions of the community by presenting a vision for the future as well as the permitted density ranges for all land use types. All land use decisions must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, while the zoning regulations specifically define how land can be used to implement the Comprehensive Plan.”
The property in question is designated as low density and parks and open space in the Comprehensive Plan.
“The parks and open space will be achieved by a proposed park on Outlot G of the Lochridge development and that proposed trail on Lake Robert, and the low density will be achieved with the proposed density of 3.2 units per acre,” Pierret said. Low density in the City’s Comprehensive Plan is defined as two to four units per acre.
Pulte will build homes north of the Ravine Parkway extension while lots south of Ravine will be retained by Rachel Development, “with a builder yet to be determined,” Pierret said. Proposed lot width for the development is 57.5 feet with a 20-foot setback building to building, both numbers exceeding minimum area standards for R4 zoning.
The developer will have three stormwater ponds to meet a requirement that Lake Robert not exceed the 100-year high water level. A “100-year” level indicates a level with 1% chance of being reached in any given year. A 3.39-acre park with parking lot and play equipment will be constructed on Outlot G, located in the southwest corner of the intersection of Jamaica Avenue with Ravine Parkway South. The parking lot will be constructed with the development while other amenities will be dependent on funding, Pierret said. From there it was back to the lake trail.
“After the Plan Commission meeting staff did investigate various trail alternatives,” she said of going near the houses. There were two alternatives, each distinguished by the route taken on their southeast side.
Alternative 1 was to construct a bituminous trail on the east, west, and south sides of Lake Robert, connecting to the sidewalk system on 67th Street Bay South. Alternative 2 was to construct a similar trail but with boardwalk over wetland on the southeast corner of Lake Robert, behind the houses and not connected to the sidewalk system. Discussion at Plan Commission had supported tying into the sidewalk system but not taking a separate land route behind the houses.
“It should be noted also that construction of boardwalks does come with a cost,” Pierret said. “Boardwalks can be up to six times the cost of asphalt per linear foot, and they cannot be maintained year-round as plow trucks cannot drive on the boardwalk.”
A separate trail section of the same trail on the north side of Lake Robert would traverse wetland in the northwest corner as opposed to being a boardwalk. Wetland credits could be purchased to fill the wetland and install a bituminous trail.
As for the south side trail, the trail would involve tree removal of unwanted species like ash and box elder, the trail located inside the 100-year high water level.
From there things went to public comments. Council member Justin Olsen started asking questions.
“First I have a question for Kori,” he said. “There was slide that stated in one portion of the slide that there would be no trail and then in the other portion of the slide that there would be a trail,” he said, referring to a 2007 report on future plans for the area. “So how do you reconcile that?”
City attorney Kori Land answered Olsen.
“Your honor, members of the council, I actually had to read that several times,” she said. “And as you know planning reports are not always written precisely and so the way I would have interpreted that is to insert what I think makes the most sense, ‘there is no trail planned yet,’ because in the following paragraph it said ‘we do plan to have a trail around the pond, we just don’t know when. And then it was followed up in the Comp Plan with a proposal that there would be trails around the pond. This clearly was intended with plans for a future trail. It wasn’t articulated as well as it could have been in the planner’s report, but it just wasn’t planned yet.”
“And was there any signage that the city put out in the portion of this property that its city owned, because when we do road stubs we put out signs that this will be a future road. Was there anything like that put out?” Olsen asked.
“No, we did not,” Land said.
“Ok, so it was in the Comp Plan which maybe 18 people read but it wasn’t signed,” he said. “That’s a bit of a challenge for me frankly, if I’m a property owner.”
A private property owner has moved personal items and improvements to the area that is city owned, with trail construction awaiting the items’ removal.
Olsen’s follow-up question was to clarify trail alternative details and public concerns on backyard traffic, followed with one on Lake Robert.
“When you look at this body of water it’s not really like a super awesome body of water. And this might be a Ryan question, but I know that the watershed is going to have to change some things in order to move water through this property, and with the bedrock that can be something of a challenge. What are they proposing to do here? I saw some of the ponds, but would they also utilize this body of water as a holding pond?”
Olsen was answered by Public Works Director Ryan Burfeind.
“Council member Olsen, Mr. Mayor, with this development like Sam mentioned there’s several points of water that come in from Calarosa to the west and Woodbury to the north so it’s a bit challenging,” he said. “They do have a series of ponds and storm pipes that get that off site water to the lake. It goes to the lake today and will continue to go to the lake in the same fashion. They won’t rate control it, because that’s not a requirement. Developers don’t have to take off-site water and slow it down. That’s just not how a development happens.” With water draining into Lake Robert, an emergency outlet constructed to drain water east allows the city to control the 100-year high water level on site. Water would move through the development to the lake and then out.
Also raised by Olsen was Jamaica Avenue.
“The reality is there will be a change for people who use that road,” he said. “As we’re looking forward to the construction of Jamaica Avenue are we confident they’re going to go back to the two lanes and the turn lanes in order to accommodate the traffic, and for people who currently live in that development to still use that roadway effectively?”
Burfeind replied to Olsen.
“In terms of Jamaica Avenue I think what is really important is like you said is in our CIP, the county CIP, for 2028,” he said. “So that’s very much solidified. In terms of what the road needs to be the county will do a traffic study and they’ll build that road out to what it needs to be,” he said. A new right turn lane would be added with the Jamaica Avenue rebuild.
Olsen had one final question on screening trees for the lake trail.
“Would the plan be to use a narrower tree like the Arbor Vitae?” he asked. “Because to be honest there’s not a lot of space there when I went out to look.”
Burfeind answered.
“We would like to use a coniferous tree so it does have that year round screening,” he said. The trail would move closer to homes but the city would work with homeowners on the matter.
Up next was council member Clausen, who expressed no questions but said he wanted to talk on the matter with the council when the time came. Asking a question Wednesday was council member Thiede.
“ I do remember seeing in the packet that there might be a little wiggle room on the red trail, that it might able to be moved in some spots a little further from the lots?,” he said of the land based option between lake and houses.
Community Development Director Emily Schmitz answered Thiede.
“Mayor, Council member Thiede, it’s possible that it might be able to be adjusted there, but this trail segment was kind of chosen to preserve as many trees as we could,” she said. “The intent was they walked this trail corridor physically with the intention that we could preserve some of the trees with the particular alignment.”
“Ok, thanks.” Thiede said. Council member Garza was next.
“After I went and walked the area and got a sense of what how it bumped up to the homes back there I started doing some digging. And because of what I do for a living I was able to access a lot of records from 2011 when the listings were first put out there, when it was just land and not the homes yet. And in those listings it stated that there was a future trailway to be brought there. And what I thought was interesting was in 2001 when these lots were first advertised they were advertised as a future railway to be put there. But then after it got sold, a couple of them were sold in 2011 and 2012, they were sold as land, that verbiage was taken away, by whoever purchased the land.”
Tracing the history further it turned into “lakefront property,” which it was not advertised as in 2011.
“So I just thought that was interesting to mention,” Garza said of the site. “Just looking back at the MLS record of the land and the homes that were sold there.”
The listing agent was deemed responsible for taking the verbiage out. Mayor Bailey chimed in on the new development as well.
“One of the questions Ryan on that newer development where that pond is I’m assuming if I saw right on that main development that is going to have access for us to get back there, is that correct?”
Burfeind confirmed the question.
“That’s correct Mayor,” he said. “On any of the development ponds there’s a requirement that we have to have stormwater access. So there’s requirements based on the size of the pond on city -owned property to get to them.”
Bailey followed up with another question.
“And do you know, because this has come up in comments to, do we know if that particular pond is actually going to hold water?” He asked.
“That’s correct,” Burfeind said. “So the ponds in here do all have to hold water because it’s in that protection area so they’re not allowed to infiltrate. There might be filtration cells where they don’t have it but in general they do.” Burfeind said changes had been made to the standards over the years like topsoil over clay liner to ensure the ponds are holding water.
“Sounds good,” Bailey said.
“The second question I had is that all of the land behind these homes would be park property, correct?”
“Correct,” city planner Emily Schmitz said. The developer will be responsible to work with the homeowner to remove encroachment items, such removal required by law.
No questions were asked of the developer, thought present.
From there it was into public comment.
Jason Johnson was the first to speak.
“We purchased our house—to make it clear where we’re at we’re off Outlet E.” Johnson said that when he and his wife had purchased the property they had called the city to ask about the trail and park. “We were told from the city—I can’t tell you who—but that there wouldn’t be a trail though. We said, ‘ok, this is the perfect property for us.” The change to a trail was a big kick to their plans. “All I’m asking is to think about the neighborhoods and security you’re affecting. The trail does go back there and anybody can get back there,” he said.
Next up for public comment was Crystal Rogers.
“I’m Crystal Rogers. My husband Eric and I live in the development,” she said. Purchasing their home in 2021 after COVID and business stress, they had done research and come across the proposed 2040 plan and called the city.
“I don’t know who I spoke to, it was a female, and she said, no, that land isn’t conducive due to flooding so there’s no plans for that,” Rogers said of a trail. “We would be significantly impacted if that red line (trail) went in, because three sides of our home would be visible.” More to the point the trail would be 10 feet in front of their property line.
“We are ok with the trail going along our driveway, along 67th Bay Street South,” she said of a potential compromise option. “We’d really ask you to consider the privacy of our home with people coming back on that pathway…and think of it as your own property that you’ve invested in for some time.”
Third to speak was Mike Miller, a lake resident near the trail.
“I live right on the lake,” he said. “I was told directly by the developers I know who told you to change the records or put it in there to say ‘lakefront property,’” he said. “We were told by the realtors, by the developers this is lakefront property, there will never be a path.” Instead the path would go up the street and around.
“We do pay more taxes, our houses are worth more because it is lakefront property,” Miller said. A path to the back would affect resident’s privacy. The proposed path behind the lake was a not a destination path, he said.
“This is not a destination path,” he said. “That was sold at the Planning Commission: this is a path everyone in Cottage Grove would go on. You’ve all walked around the lake. It is a swamp, with lily pads almost the entire summer, so I would say if this is going to be sold as a destination the city needs to work on improving the quality of the lake water, removing lily pads and potentially dredging the lake,” estimated to be five to six feet deep “at best.”
Wood ducks and bald eagles had fled the lake over the past decade as it was covered in lily pads.
“The difference between our path and the rest of the community is when they buy theirs it’s in the plat, they see the trail,” he said. “When we bought ours, we were told there’s never going to be a trail. It destroys our privacy, which is why we live where we live. Thanks for listening.”
“Thank you,” Bailey said. “Is there anybody else that would like to speak this evening?”
Kim Summerland came up to speak.
“A lot of the focus has been on the Waters on St. Michael’s Pointe. And to be clear it is also impacting our homes in the preserve,” she said. “Right now, our home buts up to the property on Outlot E.” Having bought a home and lived without the trail for over a decade, Summerland reviewed safety and privacy concerns.
“There’s been no discussion on how the trail comes around on the south and the west,” she said. Also bringing up the cost of tree mitigation, Summerland turned to the 2040 Comprehensive Plan.
“Going back to the Plan Commission wanting to have a loop immediately around the lake, that’s not what the Comp Plan shows,” she said. “There’s other alternatives, I just ask that the council considers some of those other alternatives.”
After more public feedback from residents including comments on density in what was a protected area as well as the developer’s plans for blasting bedrock, a familiar face took the dais.
“Good evening, Tony Khambata,” the former council member said. “As I look at the possible options for trail I guess my question is the cost of the boardwalk, right, so is the alternative option more expensive and would you make similar considerations for any other neighborhood? I would want if I was in any given neighborhood I would want to be treated equally. So you know if you make an exception now that sets a precedent, and then there’s the cost factor. Is the other option less expensive? Because that’s a legitimate reason without making an exception for aggrieved property owners. That’s a justifiable reason to go with an alternative plan. And lastly, it appears that whoever owns that land now prior to it being an outlot their land is being trespassed upon, so while I think while if I was in this neighborhood I would be frustrated by this I don’t think the city putting a trail back there adversely affects the property owners any more than if the current property owner was using their land in a legal way.”
From Khambata’s comments things turned to the city response, taken up by Burfeind.
“In terms of the cost of the trails if we did go with the red alignment while there certainly is cost if you’re going to build a wooded trail that isn’t any different from any other trail we build,” he said. In contrast the boardwalk would be more expensive. Turning to outside road access left turn lanes were built into the development but the right turn lanes would be built with the rebuild of Jamaica in 2028. Burfeind said he had spoken with the project manager, and they agreed it was in the project scope for Jamaica’s rebuild.
From Burfeind it was Schmitz’s turn to speak, touching on plat density.
“It might look a little denser because it’s scrunched due to the increased right of way, but if we look at land use in our Comprehensive Plan it’s important to note that’s how we guide our development,” Schmitz said. “That’s how we guide how many units are permitted on a certain property or given development.” The density equaled out, she said.
From there it was into blasting plans on site, taken up by Burfeind.
“Blasting always sounds scary,” he said. “It’s a common practice to deal with bedrock.” Giving examples including Hamlet Heights and the box culvert across from Renewal by Andersen, Burfeind said there were “proximities” to need to notify, based on what people would be able to feel. Details will be determined in the final plat stage of approval.
Schmitz then made note on the trail, saying that the red trail alternative behind homes was in the plans as trail option for the proposed plat.
“The plans that are in your staff report as a part of this resolution identify the trail to be behind those homes,” she said.
With more discussion intervening, Council member David Clausen had a question.
“Is there a way to move this forward without the trail part?” he asked.
It was all tied together, he was told. The southern portion of the trail tied in to a matter of equity with the northern portion. Possibilities for the southern portion were to look at the tree situation and put part of the trail at an angle, while the trail itself had been in the Comp Plan.
Pending the final plat then, new homes will be coming to a neighborhood to be named Lochridge, north of Lake Robert.